ORDER Kemkar, J. -- 1. This appeal under section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short, ‘the Act’) is directed against the judgment dated 21.8.2012 passed by 2nd Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Indore in Hindu Marriage Act Case No.50 of 2012. 2. Brief facts necessary for disposal of this appeal are that on 11.1.2012 the appellant (wife) and the respondent (husband) had filed a petition for dissolution of marriage by a decree of divorce by invoking the provision under section 13B of the Act. In the petition it was averred that the marriage was solemnised between them on 13.2.2009. The wife is living in her parental house since 19.2.2011. It was further averred that they are having no relationship as husband and wife since last one year and that it is not possible for them to live together. They further stated that they have mutually agreed for dissolution of their marriage. The petition was also supported by the affidavits of the parties. 3. The learned Judge after recording the evidence led by the parties vide impugned judgment dated 21.8.2012 dismissed the petition by observing that since the parties are residing separately only from 19.2.2011, they could not have filed the petition on 11.1.2012 i.e.prior to completion of 1 years from the date of their residing separately. The learned Judge accordingly, dismissed the petition by holding it to be not maintainable. Feeling aggrieved, the appellant (wife) has filed this appeal. 4. The respondent (husband) has appeared. He did not oppose the ground raised and the prayer made in this appeal. 5. We have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and perused the pleadings. 6. We find that in the petition filed under section 13B of the Act the appellant and the respondent, apart from stating the fact that the wife is residing separately in her parental house since 19.2.2011, have also stated that “both the parties are not living as husband and wife since last one years” (emphasis supplied). This part of the pleading raised by the parties have been completely lost sight of by the learned Court below and considering only the first part of the pleading that since 19.2.2011 the appellant is residing in her parental house, declined to grant decree by holding that from the date of her living separately in the parental house one year has not elapsed. However, as is clear from the averment in the petition when it was very categorically pleaded that “both the parties are not living as husband and wife since last one year” in our considered view there was no legal impediment of not completing the requisite period as provided under section 13B(1) of the Act in allowing the petition for grant of decree of divorce by mutual consent. 7. Our view finds support by the ratio of judgment of the Supreme Court laid down in the case of Smt. Sureshta Devi v. Om Prakash [ AIR 1992 SC 1904 ]. The Supreme Court while dealing with the expression “living separately” has observed thus : “The expression ‘living separately’, connotes not living like husband and wife. It has no reference to the place of living. The parties may be living under the same roof by force of circumstances, and yet they may not be living as husband and wife. The parties may be living in different houses and yet they could live as husband and wife. What seems to be necessary is that they have no desire to perform marital obligations and with that mental attitude they have been living separately for a period of one year immediately preceding the presentation of the petition.” 8. This Court in the case of Deepak (Dr.) v. Smt. Tanuja [2003(1) JLJ 121], in paragraph 14 has observed thus : “14. From the aforesaid decisions, it is clear that the trial Court as well as the appellate Court at any stage of the proceedings can grant a decree by mutual consent if the conditions laid down in section 13B and section 23 of the Act of 1955 are fulfilled and can grant a decree for divorce in a case where the dispute is pending for more than a year and parties have been living separately for a period of more than one year and they have not been able to live together and have mutually agree that the marriage should be dissolved and the consent has not been obtained by force, fraud or undue influence. Under section 13B of the Act of 1955 application can be filed and accepted by the Court and after an enquiry Court can dissolve the marriage between the parties by mutual consent. Under section 13B of the Act of 1955 application can be filed and accepted by the Court and after an enquiry Court can dissolve the marriage between the parties by mutual consent. There is nothing in section 13B of the Act of 1955 to indicate that the parties seeking divorce by mutual consent are required to prove anything in addition to that laid down under section 13B of the Act of 1955. Therefore, this Court is fully competent to accept the application filed by the parties for divorce by mutual consent under section 13B of the Act of 1955.” 9. A Division Bench of this Court in the case of Smt. Rupali Singh and another v. Aneel Kaur [ AIR 2005 M.P. 203 ], in similar set of facts where the Family Court had dismissed the application filed under section 13B of the Act on the bedrock that as per the statement of the appellants before the Family Judge to the effect that they were residing separately from December 2003 and the application preferred under section 13B of the Act was presented before the Court on 3.9.2004 and, therefore, the requisite condition stipulated under section 13B(1) of the Act was not complied with inasmuch as they were living separately for less than one year, set aside the order passed by the learned Family Court Judge and granted decree of divorce. 10. Keeping in view the aforesaid pronouncement of the Supreme Court and of this Court and the clear averments of the parties in the petition stating therein : ^^mHk;i{kksa ds e/; ,d o”kZ ls dksbZ nkaiR; laca/k LFkkfir ugha gq, gSaA** and the fact that even otherwise more than the requisite period of one year provided under section 13B(1) of the Act was already elapsed when the judgment was delivered by the trial Court, we are of the considered view the judgment of the Court below is liable to be set aside. 11. Accordingly, we set aside the judgment passed by the trial Court and grant the decree of divorce to the parties by mutual consent under section 13B of the Act. 12. The appeal stands allowed. Parties to bear their own costs. Appeal allowed.